arXiv preprint ·
RAG-Stress: Probing the Limits of Evidence Reliance in Retrieval-Augmented Generation
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
Following retrieved evidence does not guarantee factual correctness: misleading evidence can induce a model to replace an answer it previously gave correctly. Standard accuracy measures obscure this behavior by combining answer replacement with preexisting errors. We introduce RAG-Stress, a controlled diagnostic protocol for examining the limits of evidence reliance in retrieval-augmented generation. The protocol holds the question and reference answer fixed, edits one assertion to support a designated incorrect answer, and crosses two source priority policies with three positions of the answer span within the evidence text. We measure misleading rate (MR) on each model's subset of questions answered correctly without retrieval, alongside clean accuracy on the full evaluation set. We evaluate fifteen systems spanning API models, open models, and search agents trained with reinforcement learning on TriviaQA-RC, HotpotQA, and SearchQA, with additional English and Chinese MedQA evaluations. Instructions that prioritize documents consistently produce higher MR than those permitting reliance on prior knowledge. Averaged over models and positions, the gap ranges from 10.9 to 13.5 percentage points across the three QA datasets. Mean MR follows End $>$ Beginning $>$ Middle under both policies, although individual models do not uniformly follow this ordering. A separate paired audit of 500 questions and two checkpoints supports increased harmful override without establishing a corresponding improvement in beneficial correction. These findings distinguish evidence adherence from factual reliability and motivate evaluating whether retrieved evidence preserves, replaces, or corrects a model's answers.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Computation & Language / NLP
FedAlphaEdit: Null-Space-Aligned Merging for Collaborative Knowledge Editing
When Charts Deceive Web Agents: A Paired Benchmark for Misleading Visualization-Grounded Tasks
Measuring and Mitigating Solution Mode Collapse in RLVR
COFFEQA: Counterfactual-Guided Few-Shot Distillation for LLM Question Answering
Clinician use of language models diverges from how the models are evaluated
Get the few papers worth your time in Computation & Language / NLP every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.